Scott Morrison's letter to Cook constituents on the Voice fires up many

The former prime minister's letter has riled many within the electorate, who have written to the Leader and contacted other media.

The Leader reports Mr Morrison's letter and the response of one Cronulla constituent.

In his letter, accompanied by a postal vote application, Mr Morrison stopped short of urging constituents to vote No, but gave reasons for voting No.

"I wish you well with your decision," he concluded.

"If this referendum was just about recognising Indigenous Australians in our Constitution, the majority of Australians would gladly support it, including me," he wrote.

"This is not the case, it goes much further than this.

"The issues around the Voice and Indigenous recognition are not the same, and should not be conflated.

"The Voice is ill-defined and carries significant risk. Once you change the Constitution, it is permanent. You can't just change it back if, or when, things don't work. Ultimately the High Court is then left to sort out the mess and decide what it all means, long after you have cast your vote.

"This will inevitably lead to needless confusion and uncertainty - over everything from our national defence to Centrelink, which all fall within the ambit of the Voice.

"Australians rightly want to know important details about how the Voice will be chosen, how it will work and why it needs to be in the Constitution to practically improve the lives of Indigenous Australians. Australians are not getting these answers from the government."

Cronulla resident Janice Bryden responded through a letter to the Leader.

"I am writing to register my disapproval of your representation in Cook," she wrote.

"Your own lack of integrity and abuse of power were exposed post-election. You are now using the same scaremongering tactics which were the signature of your government's style, to decry the Yes vote for the Voice.

"The High Court decides the 'ambit' of the Voice if it is voted in. There is no 'mess' as you call it. The question is simple: do you support Indigenous Australians having a legitimate, constitutional channel for prioritising and voicing the way that resources should be used to improve their lives and to close the divide?

"The details of how this will work can only be devised by the High Court, AFTER it becomes constitutional. This has always been the case. It is not 'a risk'. We place our trust in the wisdom, integrity, impartiality and superior knowledge of the High Court.

"You Sir, obviously question their ability to do this- but I suggest this is a reflection of your own paucity of cognisance.

"That is why I am saying Yes. And that is why I would have predicted that you will say No."